It’s Romney

Mitt Romney swept the Maryland, D.C., and Wisconsin primaries.  The fat lady is singing.  It is hard to imagine a scenario in which Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul could stop Romney from getting the Republican presidential nomination.  Republicans might as well accept the fact that Romney will be their nominee.

Are you Republicans who initially opposed him because he didn’t seem like an authentic conservative or because you worry about his Mormonism reconciled to this reality?  Or are you looking for a Third Party candidate?  Or will you just stay home?  Or vote for Barack Obama?

See Mitt Romney’s Wisconsin win means the end of the end – The Washington Post.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://wmarkwhitlock.com W. Mark Whitlock

    Third party.

    Even if he were not a Mormon, I wouldn’t vote for him. There’s something rubber and inauthentic about him.

  • http://wmarkwhitlock.com W. Mark Whitlock

    Third party.

    Even if he were not a Mormon, I wouldn’t vote for him. There’s something rubber and inauthentic about him.

  • Pete

    My preference would be a rubber, inauthentic Mormon with conservative leanings over our current chief executive.

  • Pete

    My preference would be a rubber, inauthentic Mormon with conservative leanings over our current chief executive.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    My issue with him is not so much his Mormonism (although that does bother me) as his lack of conservatism as a full-orbed ideology. He seems to “cherry-pick” ideas that are conservative rather than embrace true conservatism.

    Also, from what I understand, Romney isn’t exactly known for being great in debates. He has a tendency to treat his opponents with kid gloves. Now, I don’t think Romney should start running vicious attack ads, but at the same time he needs to delineate clear areas of difference between himself and Obama, and hit Obama HARD on areas of inconsistency and bad policy. I just don’t see him doing that.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    My issue with him is not so much his Mormonism (although that does bother me) as his lack of conservatism as a full-orbed ideology. He seems to “cherry-pick” ideas that are conservative rather than embrace true conservatism.

    Also, from what I understand, Romney isn’t exactly known for being great in debates. He has a tendency to treat his opponents with kid gloves. Now, I don’t think Romney should start running vicious attack ads, but at the same time he needs to delineate clear areas of difference between himself and Obama, and hit Obama HARD on areas of inconsistency and bad policy. I just don’t see him doing that.

  • larry

    From conservatives I know personally it seems right at about 50/50, and these usually follow through, the one’s I know. Most have conceded he’s basically being choked down our throats, on that they are pretty much “united”. As to what they will do 50% have basically said, “I’ll hold my nose and vote for him” but its a very weak “I’ll do”. Which boils down to if something comes up that day in “my day to day life” and I’m not there to “pull the lever”, so be it. The other 50% are hoping for a third party candidate, and/or have been completely de-energized and won’t show up.

    As far as his mormonism goes, either way Americans are voting for a heathen king. It’s just a matter of who of the two least capable, if one is planning on voting this time around, can be the most capable.

  • larry

    From conservatives I know personally it seems right at about 50/50, and these usually follow through, the one’s I know. Most have conceded he’s basically being choked down our throats, on that they are pretty much “united”. As to what they will do 50% have basically said, “I’ll hold my nose and vote for him” but its a very weak “I’ll do”. Which boils down to if something comes up that day in “my day to day life” and I’m not there to “pull the lever”, so be it. The other 50% are hoping for a third party candidate, and/or have been completely de-energized and won’t show up.

    As far as his mormonism goes, either way Americans are voting for a heathen king. It’s just a matter of who of the two least capable, if one is planning on voting this time around, can be the most capable.

  • SKPeterson

    Perhaps the best hope is that there is a limited government majority in the House and maybe some movement towards a similar situation in the Senate. Romney has no tails, so it will be a slog for the Republicans to pick up seats. Granted, Obama has no tails either, so it is likely to be some semblance of status quo inertia that prevails. Right now, between Romney and Obama, it’s a toss up. Romney is about as exciting as drying glue, while Obama is revealing a petty and vindictive ineptitude that may seriously cost him during the election. A President can only suffer from a tin ear for so long. I expect that the Republicans will retain control of the House, and they may get enough seats in the Senate to deny the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. I would be mildly surprised if the Republicans won the Senate. If they do, it will be despite the gifts given them by Obama and Reid, and despite having sold their souls for the pottage that is Romney. For all the “hope and change” of the last election cycle, this seems to be one of the most depressing election seasons in decades.

  • SKPeterson

    Perhaps the best hope is that there is a limited government majority in the House and maybe some movement towards a similar situation in the Senate. Romney has no tails, so it will be a slog for the Republicans to pick up seats. Granted, Obama has no tails either, so it is likely to be some semblance of status quo inertia that prevails. Right now, between Romney and Obama, it’s a toss up. Romney is about as exciting as drying glue, while Obama is revealing a petty and vindictive ineptitude that may seriously cost him during the election. A President can only suffer from a tin ear for so long. I expect that the Republicans will retain control of the House, and they may get enough seats in the Senate to deny the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. I would be mildly surprised if the Republicans won the Senate. If they do, it will be despite the gifts given them by Obama and Reid, and despite having sold their souls for the pottage that is Romney. For all the “hope and change” of the last election cycle, this seems to be one of the most depressing election seasons in decades.

  • Booklover

    I am disappointed by Romney’s lack of conservatism, but I will not vote for Obama. He is a snake.

    I will just sit here and be sad. I think that, somehow, the media drives a lot of this flimflam.

  • Booklover

    I am disappointed by Romney’s lack of conservatism, but I will not vote for Obama. He is a snake.

    I will just sit here and be sad. I think that, somehow, the media drives a lot of this flimflam.

  • Kyralessa

    Romney’s not a social conservative. That being the case, he’s not a better choice than Obama. So I’ll vote for a third party, as I did in 2004.

  • Kyralessa

    Romney’s not a social conservative. That being the case, he’s not a better choice than Obama. So I’ll vote for a third party, as I did in 2004.

  • Jon

    Any other candidate would be a better choice than the incumbent.

    Swallow hard, pray, vote. But don’t vote third party; you might as well abstain if you do that, seriously.

    We are not voting for a theologist-in-chief–we certainly don’t have one now.

    But why would you doubt a good Mormon’s moralism, his civics, his ethic? Everyone knows they are excellent neighbors.

    It comes down to who has better ideas and can win?

    You know the direction another four years will mean. So do you want to try to change that direction?

  • Jon

    Any other candidate would be a better choice than the incumbent.

    Swallow hard, pray, vote. But don’t vote third party; you might as well abstain if you do that, seriously.

    We are not voting for a theologist-in-chief–we certainly don’t have one now.

    But why would you doubt a good Mormon’s moralism, his civics, his ethic? Everyone knows they are excellent neighbors.

    It comes down to who has better ideas and can win?

    You know the direction another four years will mean. So do you want to try to change that direction?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @#8 Abstaining means neglecting my vocation as citizen, so no I will not abstain.

    I plan on voting third party. Romney’s Mormonism has little to do with my decision. His actions in Mass. has everything to do with my decision. I don’t want another big government president, even if he is Republican flavored.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @#8 Abstaining means neglecting my vocation as citizen, so no I will not abstain.

    I plan on voting third party. Romney’s Mormonism has little to do with my decision. His actions in Mass. has everything to do with my decision. I don’t want another big government president, even if he is Republican flavored.

  • Jerry

    First, Romney does not appear to understand the principals that gave us the constitutional freedoms this country was designed around. However, as a Republican, we can hope that Romney will appoint a number of people who do to positions in government. Under Obama we get zip.

    Second, neither of the two choices for President this fall understand Christianity, other than in a “we all worship the same god” kind of way. That scares me more than anything.

  • Jerry

    First, Romney does not appear to understand the principals that gave us the constitutional freedoms this country was designed around. However, as a Republican, we can hope that Romney will appoint a number of people who do to positions in government. Under Obama we get zip.

    Second, neither of the two choices for President this fall understand Christianity, other than in a “we all worship the same god” kind of way. That scares me more than anything.

  • formerly just steve

    @ #1, “There’s something rubber and inauthentic about him.”

    Of course. He’s running for President. ’nuff said.

  • formerly just steve

    @ #1, “There’s something rubber and inauthentic about him.”

    Of course. He’s running for President. ’nuff said.

  • formerly just steve

    Government doesn’t get smaller. The Democratic candidate will want to increase government social programs. The Republican candidate will want to increase defense spending and law enforcement. Either way, government will get bigger, spending will increase, and taxes will get more onerous. There’s only on candidate who could possibly stop the out-of-control growth, and he doesn’t have a chance. But, alas, I don’t know who else to vote for.

  • formerly just steve

    Government doesn’t get smaller. The Democratic candidate will want to increase government social programs. The Republican candidate will want to increase defense spending and law enforcement. Either way, government will get bigger, spending will increase, and taxes will get more onerous. There’s only on candidate who could possibly stop the out-of-control growth, and he doesn’t have a chance. But, alas, I don’t know who else to vote for.

  • DonS

    Romney still has an opportunity to excite the party in his selection of a vice presidential candidate. If he could get someone like Paul Ryan, that would be a good move toward bridging the party to all of the young, articulate, conservatives that are emerging. The future bench for Republicans is full of promise.

    In the meantime, there is only one choice this election. To leave Obama in office for four more years, without the need to worry about winning another election, and with his view of the role of government in society, would be a devastating setback to those who value individual liberty. Not to mention, most importantly, four more years for him to fill our federal courts with people who think like he does.

  • DonS

    Romney still has an opportunity to excite the party in his selection of a vice presidential candidate. If he could get someone like Paul Ryan, that would be a good move toward bridging the party to all of the young, articulate, conservatives that are emerging. The future bench for Republicans is full of promise.

    In the meantime, there is only one choice this election. To leave Obama in office for four more years, without the need to worry about winning another election, and with his view of the role of government in society, would be a devastating setback to those who value individual liberty. Not to mention, most importantly, four more years for him to fill our federal courts with people who think like he does.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    Governor Romney has probably just re-elected Barack Obama. I don’t think I could live with myself if I voted for him. I’m still hoping that Santorum does well enough for the convention to be brokered.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    Governor Romney has probably just re-elected Barack Obama. I don’t think I could live with myself if I voted for him. I’m still hoping that Santorum does well enough for the convention to be brokered.

  • formerly just steve

    #14, honestly I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. In my opinion, the party is pretty divided and none of the candidates really possess the vision to unify it. If you say a Romney nomination will re-elect Obama, I would say the same for a Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul nomination. At least nobody has shown that they possess that vision yet. Perhaps, as McCain says, Romney needs to start talking like he’s running for President and not just the nomination and we’ll see what he’s got. I’m not hopeful.

  • formerly just steve

    #14, honestly I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. In my opinion, the party is pretty divided and none of the candidates really possess the vision to unify it. If you say a Romney nomination will re-elect Obama, I would say the same for a Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul nomination. At least nobody has shown that they possess that vision yet. Perhaps, as McCain says, Romney needs to start talking like he’s running for President and not just the nomination and we’ll see what he’s got. I’m not hopeful.

  • MarkB

    +1 to @2

    I will vote for Romney even though I don’t think his personal view is too conservative, at least on the financial side. Along with the presidential vote we also need to elect some more conservative “Tea Party” types to the house of representatives and as many as we can put into the senate. We are in desparate need of smaller less costly government, but the election of a president from either party is not going to give us limited government. We do though need a strong congress that will stand up to the tendency of the president to conglomerate power into his office. In the last several presidents we have seen the progression to an Imperial Presidency, with the current president hopefully the apex of this trend.

  • MarkB

    +1 to @2

    I will vote for Romney even though I don’t think his personal view is too conservative, at least on the financial side. Along with the presidential vote we also need to elect some more conservative “Tea Party” types to the house of representatives and as many as we can put into the senate. We are in desparate need of smaller less costly government, but the election of a president from either party is not going to give us limited government. We do though need a strong congress that will stand up to the tendency of the president to conglomerate power into his office. In the last several presidents we have seen the progression to an Imperial Presidency, with the current president hopefully the apex of this trend.

  • Jon

    @9, DL21, and others planning on voting third party.

    Why?

    It’s your assessment that a Romney presidency would be a worse choice than the incumbent? Or you think he has no chance of winning even without a third party? So you’d rather stay the course and maybe hasten our Lord’s return?

    Why squander your vote on third party if the result is only to help the incumbent?

    Clinton was really happy to have H.Ross Perot in the race in 1996.

  • Jon

    @9, DL21, and others planning on voting third party.

    Why?

    It’s your assessment that a Romney presidency would be a worse choice than the incumbent? Or you think he has no chance of winning even without a third party? So you’d rather stay the course and maybe hasten our Lord’s return?

    Why squander your vote on third party if the result is only to help the incumbent?

    Clinton was really happy to have H.Ross Perot in the race in 1996.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    A vote for a third party is only a squandered vote if a person has no good reason to cast that vote. Thinking that you cannot in good conscience vote for either of the Republicrat candidates is a good reason.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    A vote for a third party is only a squandered vote if a person has no good reason to cast that vote. Thinking that you cannot in good conscience vote for either of the Republicrat candidates is a good reason.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    I have a strange suspicion that Obama and Romney were idealogical identical twins separated at birth through some act of mercy and now we will be forced to witness these mirror images duking it out with one another, over their overly hyped and imaginary clear differences in how they themselves will be the better puppet commander in chief over this idol-image nation.

    I don’t see anything there to vote for.

    I will save my energy and vote very conscientiously in our local elections this fall.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    I have a strange suspicion that Obama and Romney were idealogical identical twins separated at birth through some act of mercy and now we will be forced to witness these mirror images duking it out with one another, over their overly hyped and imaginary clear differences in how they themselves will be the better puppet commander in chief over this idol-image nation.

    I don’t see anything there to vote for.

    I will save my energy and vote very conscientiously in our local elections this fall.

  • larry

    I’m not sure what I’ll do yet, but the old chest nut pulled out about “wasting your vote on a third party” is a foolish pragmatic argument. One can easily make a non-pragmatic argument that voting on the “devil we know” (which ever side of the aisle you are on) is in the bigger picture wasting your time and vote in truth. Voting in the short term because in the past 3 years things have turned sour is simply a pragmatic effort and only has the ephemeral apperance of “not wasting your vote”. And its completely ironic that the now gop party makes that argument forgetting their origins.

    And voting third party is none-the-less exercising one’s vocation as a cititzen.

    The VP never excites the party. Rarely, only four, are VPs elected to the presidency after they serve with the actual President, so also rarely the “door way” to the whitehouse and actually more often than not the way to never be president. And of the few, the four that did, they mostly road the coattails of a highly successful president where there was some nostalgia remaining.

  • larry

    I’m not sure what I’ll do yet, but the old chest nut pulled out about “wasting your vote on a third party” is a foolish pragmatic argument. One can easily make a non-pragmatic argument that voting on the “devil we know” (which ever side of the aisle you are on) is in the bigger picture wasting your time and vote in truth. Voting in the short term because in the past 3 years things have turned sour is simply a pragmatic effort and only has the ephemeral apperance of “not wasting your vote”. And its completely ironic that the now gop party makes that argument forgetting their origins.

    And voting third party is none-the-less exercising one’s vocation as a cititzen.

    The VP never excites the party. Rarely, only four, are VPs elected to the presidency after they serve with the actual President, so also rarely the “door way” to the whitehouse and actually more often than not the way to never be president. And of the few, the four that did, they mostly road the coattails of a highly successful president where there was some nostalgia remaining.

  • http://blog.mikeoconnor.net Michael P. O’Connor

    ope he is not the on put up. He is not prolife that is just alie he tells. I will do again this year what I did in 2008 and that is vote third party (in 2008 it was Allan Keys) I sware if we get romeny I will vote 3rd party again, and that is not a threat but a promise.

  • http://blog.mikeoconnor.net Michael P. O’Connor

    ope he is not the on put up. He is not prolife that is just alie he tells. I will do again this year what I did in 2008 and that is vote third party (in 2008 it was Allan Keys) I sware if we get romeny I will vote 3rd party again, and that is not a threat but a promise.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @17 To vote in good conscience, I must vote my principles. I cannot vote in good conscience for any candidate who is at best a maintenance of status quo or worse merely going to increase federal power and subsequent spending. I don’t care about winnability, I care about remaining true to my convictions.

    I am going to be incredibly blunt. Voting for somebody simply because you don’t like the incumbent and you think a person is the most likely to challenge him is abysmally stupid. If that is why you are voting for Romney then you really shouldn’t be voting or at least don’t complain when instead of Obamacare you get it repackaged as Romneycare or any other big government program is shoved down your throat.

    Also, a third party vote is never a squandered vote. It is also a statement. I am telling the party that I have been registered with since the day I turned 18, I am tired of politicians as usual. I actually want a candidate who is going to shrink the government not grow it.

    Lastly, maybe four more years of Obama is what it will take to get people to finally wake up and say, “no more.”

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @17 To vote in good conscience, I must vote my principles. I cannot vote in good conscience for any candidate who is at best a maintenance of status quo or worse merely going to increase federal power and subsequent spending. I don’t care about winnability, I care about remaining true to my convictions.

    I am going to be incredibly blunt. Voting for somebody simply because you don’t like the incumbent and you think a person is the most likely to challenge him is abysmally stupid. If that is why you are voting for Romney then you really shouldn’t be voting or at least don’t complain when instead of Obamacare you get it repackaged as Romneycare or any other big government program is shoved down your throat.

    Also, a third party vote is never a squandered vote. It is also a statement. I am telling the party that I have been registered with since the day I turned 18, I am tired of politicians as usual. I actually want a candidate who is going to shrink the government not grow it.

    Lastly, maybe four more years of Obama is what it will take to get people to finally wake up and say, “no more.”

  • DonS

    Might I suggest to all of you that you vote this year to preserve our courts. That, to me, is the most fundamental issue at play, and the biggest difference between Romney and Obama. Obama’s view of our Constitution is truly radical, and the kinds of judges these two men would appoint to our courts are very, very different. Judges have lifetime appointments, and this will be Obama’s biggest legacy.

  • DonS

    Might I suggest to all of you that you vote this year to preserve our courts. That, to me, is the most fundamental issue at play, and the biggest difference between Romney and Obama. Obama’s view of our Constitution is truly radical, and the kinds of judges these two men would appoint to our courts are very, very different. Judges have lifetime appointments, and this will be Obama’s biggest legacy.

  • JunkerGeorg

    I think many conservative-leaning voters are voting “against Obama” more than “for Romney”, and following yet again the pragmatic rationale of the “lesser of two evils”. I myself used to think that way too–hence, casting a vote for candidates like George “No New Taxes” Bush Sr., Dole, and, gulp, McCain.

    Funny irony is that except for Bush Jr., voting pragmatically for the lesser of two evils didn’t actually work. This time I’ve resolved to vote on my espoused principles rather than pragmatics, and write-in the candidate I am “for” (i.e., the constitutional conservative otherwise called the supposedly ‘liberaltarian, crazy old kook” whom money/power hungry crony-capitalist elitists are terrified of.)

    For sure, to most Republicans writing this candidate in is lunacy in their pragmatic mind, but my rationale is that if I vote for a candidate like Romney set by the current “establishment” of the Republican party, I am only rewarding that establishment yet again for putting forward yet another presidential nominee who doesn’t reflect many of the conservative principles they “claim” to stand upon during campaign time, let alone really ever intends to abide by the Constitution in setting policy as much as said candidates like to claim on the campaign trail (and hope we blindly believe, putting the idol of “party” over “principle”, of their past voting record).

    While I know this likely will lead to Obama getting re-elected, nevertheless, if one votes for principles espoused rather than for parties gaining power, I have no choice. That Ring of Power needs to be cast into Mt. Doom, but that’s the last thing the darling candidates within the establishments of both parties would ever want to see happen–as one follows the $$ propping up both parties back through the Federal Reserve to Goldman Sachs and such. Given such disgusting things as TARP and incessant Debt-Increase bills, along with an intentional disregard for the devalation of the currency (= higher prices of goods/services/fuel = an oppressive ‘stealth’ tax on the middle-class), the Republican establishment is simply not fiscally conservative anymore than it is constitutional, no different than the socialist Dems, even if it be manifested in slightly different areas. If the Dems are socialist, the Republican establishment is fascist according to its historic definition (i.e., collaboration between Big Government and Big Business for mutual benefit at the expense of the middle-class private-sector taxpayer).

    Ich habe genug!

  • JunkerGeorg

    I think many conservative-leaning voters are voting “against Obama” more than “for Romney”, and following yet again the pragmatic rationale of the “lesser of two evils”. I myself used to think that way too–hence, casting a vote for candidates like George “No New Taxes” Bush Sr., Dole, and, gulp, McCain.

    Funny irony is that except for Bush Jr., voting pragmatically for the lesser of two evils didn’t actually work. This time I’ve resolved to vote on my espoused principles rather than pragmatics, and write-in the candidate I am “for” (i.e., the constitutional conservative otherwise called the supposedly ‘liberaltarian, crazy old kook” whom money/power hungry crony-capitalist elitists are terrified of.)

    For sure, to most Republicans writing this candidate in is lunacy in their pragmatic mind, but my rationale is that if I vote for a candidate like Romney set by the current “establishment” of the Republican party, I am only rewarding that establishment yet again for putting forward yet another presidential nominee who doesn’t reflect many of the conservative principles they “claim” to stand upon during campaign time, let alone really ever intends to abide by the Constitution in setting policy as much as said candidates like to claim on the campaign trail (and hope we blindly believe, putting the idol of “party” over “principle”, of their past voting record).

    While I know this likely will lead to Obama getting re-elected, nevertheless, if one votes for principles espoused rather than for parties gaining power, I have no choice. That Ring of Power needs to be cast into Mt. Doom, but that’s the last thing the darling candidates within the establishments of both parties would ever want to see happen–as one follows the $$ propping up both parties back through the Federal Reserve to Goldman Sachs and such. Given such disgusting things as TARP and incessant Debt-Increase bills, along with an intentional disregard for the devalation of the currency (= higher prices of goods/services/fuel = an oppressive ‘stealth’ tax on the middle-class), the Republican establishment is simply not fiscally conservative anymore than it is constitutional, no different than the socialist Dems, even if it be manifested in slightly different areas. If the Dems are socialist, the Republican establishment is fascist according to its historic definition (i.e., collaboration between Big Government and Big Business for mutual benefit at the expense of the middle-class private-sector taxpayer).

    Ich habe genug!

  • Jon

    @22, DL21,

    “Lastly, maybe four more years of Obama is what it will take to get people to finally wake up and say, ‘no more.’”

    So you are trying to hasten our Lord’s return, then. Because it’s quite likely given the incumbent’s trajectory that when they wake up at the end of the next four years of him, there really will be “no more.” As in, nothing left, game over.

    But, go ahead and vote your conscience. Its not wise to go against conscience, someone once said.

  • Jon

    @22, DL21,

    “Lastly, maybe four more years of Obama is what it will take to get people to finally wake up and say, ‘no more.’”

    So you are trying to hasten our Lord’s return, then. Because it’s quite likely given the incumbent’s trajectory that when they wake up at the end of the next four years of him, there really will be “no more.” As in, nothing left, game over.

    But, go ahead and vote your conscience. Its not wise to go against conscience, someone once said.

  • SKPeterson

    Once again we are faced with a difficult electoral choice: to vote for the Giant Douchebag or the Turd Sandwich.

  • SKPeterson

    Once again we are faced with a difficult electoral choice: to vote for the Giant Douchebag or the Turd Sandwich.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jon (@25), talking points such as yours are exactly why the Trilateral Commission long ago decided to throw out all the ballots cast by Evangelicals in American elections. Which is, of course, the only reason Obama won.

    Only slightly more seriously, there is this.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jon (@25), talking points such as yours are exactly why the Trilateral Commission long ago decided to throw out all the ballots cast by Evangelicals in American elections. Which is, of course, the only reason Obama won.

    Only slightly more seriously, there is this.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @25 I really do not see, how finally having the pendulum swing from greater governmental intrusion and power towards limited smaller government equals hastening the Lord’s return. But then, I don’t see Obama as the end of all things, just a major pain in the posterior.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @25 I really do not see, how finally having the pendulum swing from greater governmental intrusion and power towards limited smaller government equals hastening the Lord’s return. But then, I don’t see Obama as the end of all things, just a major pain in the posterior.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So are all LCMS pastors third-party types, or did all three pro-third-party LCMS pastors just end up on this blog?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So are all LCMS pastors third-party types, or did all three pro-third-party LCMS pastors just end up on this blog?

  • SKPeterson

    If only we had someone with both presidential gravitas and a keen grasp of the issues to vote for. Someone like Sarah Palin.

    But different.

  • SKPeterson

    If only we had someone with both presidential gravitas and a keen grasp of the issues to vote for. Someone like Sarah Palin.

    But different.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I am not reconciled to this. I will not be voting for him. It doesn’t much matter what I do at this point. Utah electorate decided to vote for him 6 years ago I think. I don’t vote Mormon. I sometimes vote Republican, but when I do I like to vote for a Republican, or a Libertarian leaning Republican. I don’t like to vote for that other Republican subparty called Mormon.
    I will probably vote third party just to help out a third party cause, perhaps help them get enough votes to write off expenses or whatever, get funding for the next time around?

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I am not reconciled to this. I will not be voting for him. It doesn’t much matter what I do at this point. Utah electorate decided to vote for him 6 years ago I think. I don’t vote Mormon. I sometimes vote Republican, but when I do I like to vote for a Republican, or a Libertarian leaning Republican. I don’t like to vote for that other Republican subparty called Mormon.
    I will probably vote third party just to help out a third party cause, perhaps help them get enough votes to write off expenses or whatever, get funding for the next time around?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I think Romney has an interesting problem on his hands in regard to VP selection. The conventional wisdom is that you should pick a candidate that covers over some of your weaknesses (usually playing to a geographical region you’re not doing so hot in), but who won’t overshadow your candidacy.

    Of course, just about any possibility out there will improve over Romney’s weaknesses in some way. Paul Ryan would certainly shore up Romney’s conservative deficiencies. And Romney would be hard-pressed to find a VP that didn’t generate more excitement than he does. But which of those people would actually want to run as his veep?

    And will Romney’s marketing staff give any consideration to running the VP’s name in a larger font than Romney’s on the bumper stickers? “Vote PAWLENTY/Romney in 2012 — Who knows? Maybe Romney will abdicate?”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I think Romney has an interesting problem on his hands in regard to VP selection. The conventional wisdom is that you should pick a candidate that covers over some of your weaknesses (usually playing to a geographical region you’re not doing so hot in), but who won’t overshadow your candidacy.

    Of course, just about any possibility out there will improve over Romney’s weaknesses in some way. Paul Ryan would certainly shore up Romney’s conservative deficiencies. And Romney would be hard-pressed to find a VP that didn’t generate more excitement than he does. But which of those people would actually want to run as his veep?

    And will Romney’s marketing staff give any consideration to running the VP’s name in a larger font than Romney’s on the bumper stickers? “Vote PAWLENTY/Romney in 2012 — Who knows? Maybe Romney will abdicate?”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    My bad (@29), all four pro-third-party LCMS pastors (cf. @31).

    Honestly, I find this quite interesting.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    My bad (@29), all four pro-third-party LCMS pastors (cf. @31).

    Honestly, I find this quite interesting.

  • http://www.caryschwarz.com saddler

    Don @ 23

    That’s the biggest reason I can’t even think about voting otherwise.

  • http://www.caryschwarz.com saddler

    Don @ 23

    That’s the biggest reason I can’t even think about voting otherwise.

  • Jon

    tODD @27, lost me on the sarco-humor.

    DL21 @28, My point is, you won’t get a pendulum swing with a 3rd party vote. It’ll only help the incumbent’s momentum overcome and keep swinging the same direction.

    @31, Bror, I get that you live there in Mormon land. But, really, you won’t vote for Romney over Obama on account of his Mormonness?

    Seems to me the real reason you advocate for a third party is you guys think that Obama is inevitable (so let’s make a statement instead by voting 3rd) or, you really don’t think the incumbent is all that bad, and we might be able to recover later on.

    Call me pragmatic if you will, but my conscience says to look out for what is best for the country and if it is lesser of two evils in the perilous situation I believe we are in, then that’s it for me. I’ll save my “ideal” candidate vote for later.

  • Jon

    tODD @27, lost me on the sarco-humor.

    DL21 @28, My point is, you won’t get a pendulum swing with a 3rd party vote. It’ll only help the incumbent’s momentum overcome and keep swinging the same direction.

    @31, Bror, I get that you live there in Mormon land. But, really, you won’t vote for Romney over Obama on account of his Mormonness?

    Seems to me the real reason you advocate for a third party is you guys think that Obama is inevitable (so let’s make a statement instead by voting 3rd) or, you really don’t think the incumbent is all that bad, and we might be able to recover later on.

    Call me pragmatic if you will, but my conscience says to look out for what is best for the country and if it is lesser of two evils in the perilous situation I believe we are in, then that’s it for me. I’ll save my “ideal” candidate vote for later.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    I’m voting on principle and conscience too. The principle is that a president’s real power to effect change — he has no legislative powers, and his executive powers are mostly limited to what Congress gives him — is in his appointing of judges and justices. My conscience says that it is wrong to not do what I can to replace a president who would appoint the type of judges and justices that don’t respect liberty and would decide cases in favor of tyranny and repression of liberties.

    I won’t go so far as to say voting 3rd party is “wasting one’s vote,” but I will say it isn’t at all helpful in restraining political evil.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    I’m voting on principle and conscience too. The principle is that a president’s real power to effect change — he has no legislative powers, and his executive powers are mostly limited to what Congress gives him — is in his appointing of judges and justices. My conscience says that it is wrong to not do what I can to replace a president who would appoint the type of judges and justices that don’t respect liberty and would decide cases in favor of tyranny and repression of liberties.

    I won’t go so far as to say voting 3rd party is “wasting one’s vote,” but I will say it isn’t at all helpful in restraining political evil.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    The thing that drives me batty about the pro-two-party arguments is their inconsistency.

    “If you vote third party, you’re throwing your vote away, since you know he won’t win!” Ah, but by this logic, one should simply monitor the polls and vow to vote for whomever looks most likely to win. I mean, there was clearly a point in 1996 where Dole simply wasn’t going to win. Did these people therefore vote for Clinton, so as to avoid throwing their vote away?

    Of course not. Because there are simply some lines these pro-two-party people won’t cross. “Dole was the better candidate, the lesser of two evils; I could never have voted for Clinton because blah blah blah!” But, again, they never take this logic all the way. After all, someone in 1996 might well have argued that Perot was the best candidate, the least of three evils, and they could never have voted for Clinton or Dole because blah blah blah.

    But then the pro-two-party person circles back and applies the “unlikely to win” argument. It’s maddeningly inconsistent. In the end, one is forced to conclude that the arguments derive (consistently) from little more than pure partisanship (i.e. “Republican Party forever!”) or at least a deep distaste for any and all third parties, for whatever reason.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    The thing that drives me batty about the pro-two-party arguments is their inconsistency.

    “If you vote third party, you’re throwing your vote away, since you know he won’t win!” Ah, but by this logic, one should simply monitor the polls and vow to vote for whomever looks most likely to win. I mean, there was clearly a point in 1996 where Dole simply wasn’t going to win. Did these people therefore vote for Clinton, so as to avoid throwing their vote away?

    Of course not. Because there are simply some lines these pro-two-party people won’t cross. “Dole was the better candidate, the lesser of two evils; I could never have voted for Clinton because blah blah blah!” But, again, they never take this logic all the way. After all, someone in 1996 might well have argued that Perot was the best candidate, the least of three evils, and they could never have voted for Clinton or Dole because blah blah blah.

    But then the pro-two-party person circles back and applies the “unlikely to win” argument. It’s maddeningly inconsistent. In the end, one is forced to conclude that the arguments derive (consistently) from little more than pure partisanship (i.e. “Republican Party forever!”) or at least a deep distaste for any and all third parties, for whatever reason.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike (@36), I think the judicial argument is a fine one, and if that is your primary metric, then it certainly does lead one away from voting third-party.

    That said, saying that the President’s

    executive powers are mostly limited to what Congress gives him

    Seems a bit naive of recent history. Modern Presidents aren’t exactly shy about exercising power, nor has Congress done a whole lot to rein it in.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike (@36), I think the judicial argument is a fine one, and if that is your primary metric, then it certainly does lead one away from voting third-party.

    That said, saying that the President’s

    executive powers are mostly limited to what Congress gives him

    Seems a bit naive of recent history. Modern Presidents aren’t exactly shy about exercising power, nor has Congress done a whole lot to rein it in.

  • Tom Hering

    On the other hand, most justices don’t create the kind of court their cheering sections thought they would.

  • Tom Hering

    On the other hand, most justices don’t create the kind of court their cheering sections thought they would.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I feel like the people who mock third-party candidates are akin to those who play chess by refusing to consider anything but the current move. That is to say, they rule out any long-term strategy by focusing solely on the short term. I.e. “What is the best move you can make now to improve things immediately after that move?” But, of course, that isn’t always the best strategy, either in politics or chess.

    In the world of economics, we speak with our purchases. You can hate on McDonald’s all day long, mocking them to your friends and on Facebook, but if you still eat there, if you still pay them, McDonald’s doesn’t really care.

    It’s the same with politics. To the degree that political parties and politicians hear anything from the average person, they hear our vote (I’m cynical enough to realize that what they really listen to is money, but that’s a different topic). So if you go on and on in blog comments about how Romney isn’t all that conservative, he wasn’t the best possible candidate, and so on … and then you still vote for Romney, here’s what the Republican Party will hear: you liked Romney.

    Don’t be too surprised, then, if you get more candidates like Romney in the Republican Party. Because they know that, even though you claim to like fiscal (or whatever) conservatism, you’ll still vote for the Republican, regardless. There’s no market force, as it were, to push the party in the direction of actual fiscal conservatism — they’ll get what they want from you, either way.

    Yes, denying them your vote and voting third-party might lead to a temporal gain for the other major party you really don’t like. But, if the third-party votes are significant enough — if the GOP sees that it can’t actually count on your vote no matter how lousy the candidate — then they might actually have to deal with that by straightening up their act.

    Such a chastened party might then actually run a candidate you approve of. But you’d have to play the long game to find out.

    And most voters refuse to play the long game.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I feel like the people who mock third-party candidates are akin to those who play chess by refusing to consider anything but the current move. That is to say, they rule out any long-term strategy by focusing solely on the short term. I.e. “What is the best move you can make now to improve things immediately after that move?” But, of course, that isn’t always the best strategy, either in politics or chess.

    In the world of economics, we speak with our purchases. You can hate on McDonald’s all day long, mocking them to your friends and on Facebook, but if you still eat there, if you still pay them, McDonald’s doesn’t really care.

    It’s the same with politics. To the degree that political parties and politicians hear anything from the average person, they hear our vote (I’m cynical enough to realize that what they really listen to is money, but that’s a different topic). So if you go on and on in blog comments about how Romney isn’t all that conservative, he wasn’t the best possible candidate, and so on … and then you still vote for Romney, here’s what the Republican Party will hear: you liked Romney.

    Don’t be too surprised, then, if you get more candidates like Romney in the Republican Party. Because they know that, even though you claim to like fiscal (or whatever) conservatism, you’ll still vote for the Republican, regardless. There’s no market force, as it were, to push the party in the direction of actual fiscal conservatism — they’ll get what they want from you, either way.

    Yes, denying them your vote and voting third-party might lead to a temporal gain for the other major party you really don’t like. But, if the third-party votes are significant enough — if the GOP sees that it can’t actually count on your vote no matter how lousy the candidate — then they might actually have to deal with that by straightening up their act.

    Such a chastened party might then actually run a candidate you approve of. But you’d have to play the long game to find out.

    And most voters refuse to play the long game.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    That said, saying that the President’s

    executive powers are mostly limited to what Congress gives him

    Seems a bit naive of recent history.

    Got a point there. But shouldn’t it be the courts that rein in the abuses of the Executive? Of course, that hasn’t been done much either.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    That said, saying that the President’s

    executive powers are mostly limited to what Congress gives him

    Seems a bit naive of recent history.

    Got a point there. But shouldn’t it be the courts that rein in the abuses of the Executive? Of course, that hasn’t been done much either.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Todd, post #40

    “Don’t be too surprised, then, if you get more candidates like Romney in the Republican Party. Because they know that, even though you claim to like fiscal (or whatever) conservatism, you’ll still vote for the Republican, regardless. There’s no market force, as it were, to push the party in the direction of actual fiscal conservatism — they’ll get what they want from you, either way.”
    ——-

    Exactly.

    Let’s see whom we’ve gotten as nominees from the Republicans since Reagan: George Bush Sr., Bob Dole, George Bush Jr., John McCain, and now Mitt Romney. (And this is not forgetting how much Reagan himself fell off his fiscal conservative campaign platform wagon during his 2nd term with his deficit expenditures, let alone hiring the Keynesian disaster Greenspan to the Fed.)

    So again, since Reagan we’ve gotten Bush Sr., Dole, Bush Jr., McCain, and now Romney. Hmmm. As we sit with a rising 16 trillion debt and rising and a dollar that is falling ($5 gasoline this summer anyone?) . Does any other Republican see a trend here by pragmatically going party over principle, by voting for the lesser of two evils? One can rightly ridicule the Obama “hopey, changey” deal not workin out, but what about the status quo Rino’s we keep running out? How’s that workin out for us? When is enough enough?

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Todd, post #40

    “Don’t be too surprised, then, if you get more candidates like Romney in the Republican Party. Because they know that, even though you claim to like fiscal (or whatever) conservatism, you’ll still vote for the Republican, regardless. There’s no market force, as it were, to push the party in the direction of actual fiscal conservatism — they’ll get what they want from you, either way.”
    ——-

    Exactly.

    Let’s see whom we’ve gotten as nominees from the Republicans since Reagan: George Bush Sr., Bob Dole, George Bush Jr., John McCain, and now Mitt Romney. (And this is not forgetting how much Reagan himself fell off his fiscal conservative campaign platform wagon during his 2nd term with his deficit expenditures, let alone hiring the Keynesian disaster Greenspan to the Fed.)

    So again, since Reagan we’ve gotten Bush Sr., Dole, Bush Jr., McCain, and now Romney. Hmmm. As we sit with a rising 16 trillion debt and rising and a dollar that is falling ($5 gasoline this summer anyone?) . Does any other Republican see a trend here by pragmatically going party over principle, by voting for the lesser of two evils? One can rightly ridicule the Obama “hopey, changey” deal not workin out, but what about the status quo Rino’s we keep running out? How’s that workin out for us? When is enough enough?

  • SKPeterson

    As to the question of judicial appointments, I’m not too sure Romney would choose better than Obama. Do you really think he would appoint justices that would adhere to a more strict understanding of Constitutional limits on government power? Maybe, but I’m thinking his selections would be only marginally better than those of Obama, with their potentially being a few really bad selections. Face it, if you look at the President’s JG notes @42, how many strict constructionists were appointed? Yes, a few at the Supreme Court level, but how many out in the hustings? And how many conservative busts were appointed to the Court by the Republicans? David Souter anyone? How many more Souter’s are out there?

    The question for our courts is this: Are there more than a handful of strict constructionists anywhere in the legal profession, especially in our nation’s law schools? I suspect the answer is, not too many.

    If you want conservative legal scholars to fill the benches of the nation’s courts, then you need to start by reforming legal education and maybe having a President who doesn’t automatically go to the tired pool of Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Georgetown, Berkeley or Stanford law grads and professors to make his pick amongst “the best” legal minds. In fact, maybe the first step would be a President who states that he won’t pick anyone who graduated from, or is on the faculty of, the “top 20″ law schools in the country.

  • SKPeterson

    As to the question of judicial appointments, I’m not too sure Romney would choose better than Obama. Do you really think he would appoint justices that would adhere to a more strict understanding of Constitutional limits on government power? Maybe, but I’m thinking his selections would be only marginally better than those of Obama, with their potentially being a few really bad selections. Face it, if you look at the President’s JG notes @42, how many strict constructionists were appointed? Yes, a few at the Supreme Court level, but how many out in the hustings? And how many conservative busts were appointed to the Court by the Republicans? David Souter anyone? How many more Souter’s are out there?

    The question for our courts is this: Are there more than a handful of strict constructionists anywhere in the legal profession, especially in our nation’s law schools? I suspect the answer is, not too many.

    If you want conservative legal scholars to fill the benches of the nation’s courts, then you need to start by reforming legal education and maybe having a President who doesn’t automatically go to the tired pool of Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Georgetown, Berkeley or Stanford law grads and professors to make his pick amongst “the best” legal minds. In fact, maybe the first step would be a President who states that he won’t pick anyone who graduated from, or is on the faculty of, the “top 20″ law schools in the country.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “In fact, maybe the first step would be a President who states that he won’t pick anyone who graduated from, or is on the faculty of, the “top 20″ law schools in the country.”

    That would be refreshing.

    I tire of the American aristocracy.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “In fact, maybe the first step would be a President who states that he won’t pick anyone who graduated from, or is on the faculty of, the “top 20″ law schools in the country.”

    That would be refreshing.

    I tire of the American aristocracy.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Kind of along the lines of tODD’s arguments above (@37 & @40), I wonder what would send the better message: a) a large number of independent and disenfranchised Democrats and Republicans voting third party? or b) a large number of independent and disenfranchised Democrats and Republicans not voting at all in the presidential race?

    I want my throw-away vote to count, after all.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Kind of along the lines of tODD’s arguments above (@37 & @40), I wonder what would send the better message: a) a large number of independent and disenfranchised Democrats and Republicans voting third party? or b) a large number of independent and disenfranchised Democrats and Republicans not voting at all in the presidential race?

    I want my throw-away vote to count, after all.

  • DonS

    SKP @ 43: Hmm. So, your proposition is that Romney’s judicial appointments would be just as bad as Obama’s? Like George W.’s were just as bad as Obama’s? Let’s compare John Roberts and Samuel Alito to Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagen, shall we?

  • DonS

    SKP @ 43: Hmm. So, your proposition is that Romney’s judicial appointments would be just as bad as Obama’s? Like George W.’s were just as bad as Obama’s? Let’s compare John Roberts and Samuel Alito to Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagen, shall we?

  • formerly just steve

    tODD, Bryan, Junker, et al: You’re either with us or you’re against us. It’s that simple.

  • formerly just steve

    tODD, Bryan, Junker, et al: You’re either with us or you’re against us. It’s that simple.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FJSteve (@47), sorry, are you being sarcastic or not? I can’t tell.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FJSteve (@47), sorry, are you being sarcastic or not? I can’t tell.

  • Jon

    tODD @ 40,

    I’m not mocking third party candidates…well, maybe Perot.

    I see your long term strategy. However, I seriously think there’s a good chance that we will let the incumbent drive us over the cliff with his foot on the gas pedal. As in, no long term strategy, no way to recover. So i’ll take the other guy who may be heading in the same direction, but at least coasting.

    I have a long term strategy that wants to be truly conservative. But I want to be able to actually realize it, and not run the risk that by helping the other guy get elected again, I can’t ever get there.

    In other words, the game’s coming down quickly to checkmate. We gotta make a move now.

  • Jon

    tODD @ 40,

    I’m not mocking third party candidates…well, maybe Perot.

    I see your long term strategy. However, I seriously think there’s a good chance that we will let the incumbent drive us over the cliff with his foot on the gas pedal. As in, no long term strategy, no way to recover. So i’ll take the other guy who may be heading in the same direction, but at least coasting.

    I have a long term strategy that wants to be truly conservative. But I want to be able to actually realize it, and not run the risk that by helping the other guy get elected again, I can’t ever get there.

    In other words, the game’s coming down quickly to checkmate. We gotta make a move now.

  • kerner

    tODD has already brought up the issue of Romney’s choice of VP, which I think is relevant.

    I have had very serious misgivings about Romney from the start. I Supported McCain last time over him. I really wanted to see a Republican candidate that I could support with a lot fewer reservations, but none rose to the occasion.

    But…Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Ron Johnson have come out in support of Romney. Most of you have heard of Paul Ryan, and Sen. Johnson is a Tea Party Supported Senator who was elected in Wisconsin in 2010. If these guys think that they can work with Romney, it makes a big difference to me. I believe that Romney will substantially keep any bargain he has made with them.

    Re tODD’s point about the VP. When added to the endorcements from conservatives I trust, if Romney picks a VP candidate who conservatives can trust (as McCain did in 2008) I will vote for Romney. I never thought I would say that, but there it is. I can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good when this much is at stake.

  • kerner

    tODD has already brought up the issue of Romney’s choice of VP, which I think is relevant.

    I have had very serious misgivings about Romney from the start. I Supported McCain last time over him. I really wanted to see a Republican candidate that I could support with a lot fewer reservations, but none rose to the occasion.

    But…Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Ron Johnson have come out in support of Romney. Most of you have heard of Paul Ryan, and Sen. Johnson is a Tea Party Supported Senator who was elected in Wisconsin in 2010. If these guys think that they can work with Romney, it makes a big difference to me. I believe that Romney will substantially keep any bargain he has made with them.

    Re tODD’s point about the VP. When added to the endorcements from conservatives I trust, if Romney picks a VP candidate who conservatives can trust (as McCain did in 2008) I will vote for Romney. I never thought I would say that, but there it is. I can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good when this much is at stake.

  • formerly just steve

    tODD, #48, kind of. It was a throwback to Bush and the War on Terror. That is the two-party mindset. Pick your corner. No room in the middle. No compromises. When, ironically, two-party systems mean more compromise.

  • formerly just steve

    tODD, #48, kind of. It was a throwback to Bush and the War on Terror. That is the two-party mindset. Pick your corner. No room in the middle. No compromises. When, ironically, two-party systems mean more compromise.

  • formerly just steve

    To amend my previous post, the two-party mindset is really a one-party mindset: my party and everyone else. It’s better for my party if people who aren’t voting for my party are divided.

  • formerly just steve

    To amend my previous post, the two-party mindset is really a one-party mindset: my party and everyone else. It’s better for my party if people who aren’t voting for my party are divided.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jon said (@49):

    I have a long term strategy that wants to be truly conservative. But I want to be able to actually realize it, and not run the risk that by helping the other guy get elected again, I can’t ever get there.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Every term a Democrat’s in the White House is the one we just might go over the cliff, and so every election is one in which you just have to vote for the not-actually-conservative Republican.

    And that’s your “strategy that wants to be truly conservative”: to keep voting for not-truly conservatives. Maybe it’ll finally work this year, right? You just have to keep trying it over and over until it does!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jon said (@49):

    I have a long term strategy that wants to be truly conservative. But I want to be able to actually realize it, and not run the risk that by helping the other guy get elected again, I can’t ever get there.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Every term a Democrat’s in the White House is the one we just might go over the cliff, and so every election is one in which you just have to vote for the not-actually-conservative Republican.

    And that’s your “strategy that wants to be truly conservative”: to keep voting for not-truly conservatives. Maybe it’ll finally work this year, right? You just have to keep trying it over and over until it does!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner said (@50):

    …if Romney picks a VP candidate who conservatives can trust (as McCain did in 2008)…

    If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were mocking conservatives.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner said (@50):

    …if Romney picks a VP candidate who conservatives can trust (as McCain did in 2008)…

    If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were mocking conservatives.

  • Tom Hering

    Unless he’s going to be sort of a shadow President like Cheney was, what difference will the VP choice make beyond electability?

  • Tom Hering

    Unless he’s going to be sort of a shadow President like Cheney was, what difference will the VP choice make beyond electability?

  • JunkerGeorg

    “Like a Republican returns to its Rinos, so does a fool to his folly.” (If God didn’t say that in Proverbs, well, maybe He should have.)

  • JunkerGeorg

    “Like a Republican returns to its Rinos, so does a fool to his folly.” (If God didn’t say that in Proverbs, well, maybe He should have.)

  • Michael B.

    @Todd

    “Let’s see whom we’ve gotten as nominees from the Republicans since Reagan: George Bush Sr., Bob Dole, George Bush Jr., John McCain, and now Mitt Romney.”

    Would you rather have had Dukakis, Clinton, Al Gore, Kerry, and Obama as president? Not to mention that with each win, the winning side will get more bold.

  • Michael B.

    @Todd

    “Let’s see whom we’ve gotten as nominees from the Republicans since Reagan: George Bush Sr., Bob Dole, George Bush Jr., John McCain, and now Mitt Romney.”

    Would you rather have had Dukakis, Clinton, Al Gore, Kerry, and Obama as president? Not to mention that with each win, the winning side will get more bold.

  • http://homewardbound-cb.blogspot.com ChrisB

    A vote for a “true conservative” third party candidate is a vote for Obama. That’s just the facts of life in our system.

  • http://homewardbound-cb.blogspot.com ChrisB

    A vote for a “true conservative” third party candidate is a vote for Obama. That’s just the facts of life in our system.

  • SKPeterson

    Michael B. – What sort of boldness have we had from the Republicans? Not much.

    Obama is simply a defender of standard, dirigiste Democratic orthodoxy; while he’s viewed as some horrible radical, he’s definitely in the same vein as FDR, Truman or Johnson. In fact, he’s really, really Johnsonesque in my estimation.

    Romney reminds me of Nixon. That’s not good. I don’t think he’s Watergate foolish, but I don’t see him challenging Bernanke, or re-opening the gold window, or doing much to rein in the welfare-warfare state. He might lower taxes, but he also appears to be more of the “Read my lips” sort of Republican.

    Finally, I hope that Paul Ryan does not allow himself to be manipulated into becoming the VP candidate. He is far more valuable to the cause of reducing the scale and scope of government in his position in the House than he would be as a VP nominee – that is wasting a vote, even if his ticket would win.

  • SKPeterson

    Michael B. – What sort of boldness have we had from the Republicans? Not much.

    Obama is simply a defender of standard, dirigiste Democratic orthodoxy; while he’s viewed as some horrible radical, he’s definitely in the same vein as FDR, Truman or Johnson. In fact, he’s really, really Johnsonesque in my estimation.

    Romney reminds me of Nixon. That’s not good. I don’t think he’s Watergate foolish, but I don’t see him challenging Bernanke, or re-opening the gold window, or doing much to rein in the welfare-warfare state. He might lower taxes, but he also appears to be more of the “Read my lips” sort of Republican.

    Finally, I hope that Paul Ryan does not allow himself to be manipulated into becoming the VP candidate. He is far more valuable to the cause of reducing the scale and scope of government in his position in the House than he would be as a VP nominee – that is wasting a vote, even if his ticket would win.

  • helen

    Funny irony is that except for Bush Jr., voting pragmatically for the lesser of two evils didn’t actually work. –JunkerGeorg

    What makes you think it “worked” with Bush Jr. ?

  • helen

    Funny irony is that except for Bush Jr., voting pragmatically for the lesser of two evils didn’t actually work. –JunkerGeorg

    What makes you think it “worked” with Bush Jr. ?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X